Bills: HF2730, HF2257, HF2768, HF1932, HF2437

Keywords: local government debt, municipal bonds, county bonds, capital improvements, public financing, bond issuance, public hearing, notice period, bond guarantee, Minnesota Public Facilities Authority, volume cap, private activity bonds, housing finance, residential rental bonds, LIHTC, low-income housing tax credits, redevelopment, courthouse financing, jail financing, law enforcement center

Transcript Highlights:

• Housing and Community Affairs releases its qualified allocation plan as required under the federal LIHTC
• This QAP determines the criteria that must be achieved for developments seeking to receive LIHTC funds
• a study of how this prohibition impacts affordable housing development and the allocation of these LIHTC

Bills: SB111, SB128, SB203, SB205, SB261, SB317, SB393, SB397, SB466, SB510, SB582, SB705, SB731, SB748, SB801, SB867, SB876, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1250, SB1285, SB1310, SB1400, SB1444, SB1483, SB1553, SB1556, SB1581, SB1608, SB1698, SB1723, SB1730, SB1835, SB1858, SB1903, SB1946, SB1950, SB1986, SB2017, SB2043, SB2056, SB2058, SB2063, SB2082, SB2105, SB2133, SB2137, SB2177, SB2203, SB2260, SB2311, SB2334, SB2344, SB2403, SB2417, SB2446, SB2519, SB2522, SB2532, SB2600, SB2611, SB2619, SB2637, SB2688, SB2717, SB2764, SB2785, SB2790, SB2794, SB2841, SB2847, SB2857, SB2878, SB2891, SB2943, SB2955, SB2972, SB2995, SB3037, SB3057, SB3059, HJR2, HB26, HB206, HB334, HB451, HB517, HB554, HB1109, HB2081, HB2756, HB3204, HB3809, SJR3, SB5, SB72, SB509, SB616, SB963, SB985, SB1025, SB1080, SB1143, SB1172, SB1245, SB1267, SB1271, SB1273, SB1355, SB1422, SB1759, SB1786, SB2361, SB17, SB314, SB455, SB761, SB1023, SB1968, SB2122, SB2371, SB2420, SB2544, SB1, SB260, SB1506, SB1637, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1359, SB1234, SB2926, SB2972, SB2841, SB1528, SB2891, SB1854, SB317, SB2532, SB1250, SB2082, SB2203, SB1285, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB1723, SB1858, SB1946, SB2009, SB2177, SB2460, SB2785, SB867, SB1608, SB640, SB1698, SB705, SB748, SB2680, SB2994, SB2747, SB1950, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB3059, SB2637, SB2334, SB1861, SB2043, SB1367, SB2857, SB128, SB3058, SB2044, SB2363, SB2311, SB1986, SB2565, SB2943, SB1888, SB2417, SB3048, SB3052, SB3053, SB3036, SB3057, SB3056, SB3043, SB3037, SB3050, SB3063, SB3047, SB3035, SB2446, SB466, SB2611, SB2794, SB2105, SB2017, SB1790, SB1778, SB1730, SB2995, SB2847, SB205, SB2619, SB1903, SB203, SB3061, SB1581, SB2600, SB2799, SB2790, SB2688, SB2515, SB1230, SB876, SB2522, SB2639, SB2137, SB2519, SB2403, SB2459, SB3051, SB2655, SB2251, SB2764, SB2878, SB1884, SB111, SB582, SB2617, SB1835, SB2751, SB2063, SB1400, SB2058, SB2260, SB2928, SB1310, SB2566, SB2344, SB1897, SB1749, SB1361, SB2549, SB2553, HJR2, HJR1, HB1109, HB517, HB1130, HB1689, HB2884, HB1393, HB2559, HB26, HB2756, HB3204, HB3012, HB1327, HB451, HB109, HB206, HB1238, HB2890, HB9, HB2081, HB4215, HB2970, HB37, HB1899, HB3809, HB334, HB554, HB1593, HB2607, HB3526, HB3810, HB5092, HB388, HB2809, HB1151, HB913, SB2919, SB1782, SB1705, SB2696, SB1944, SB2215, SB644, HB3307, HB879, HB116, HB12, HB2703, HB1610, HB1615, HB1620, HB30, HB21, HCR7, HCR75, HCR86, HCR92, HCR93, HCR126

Keywords: special education, school districts, legal fees, reporting requirements, transparency, hospital reporting, child abuse, neglect, administrative penalty, medical ethics, child protection, student privacy, numerical class rank, education policy, academic programs, high school, fetal development, health curriculum, public schools, middle school health education

Transcript Highlights:

• Current state housing finance programs like LIHTC are almost entirely focused on rental housing.
• can be adapted to the problem at hand, including the low-income housing tax credit program, or the LIHTC
• affordable homeownership production, has received about 15 cents for every dollar allocated to the state LIHTC

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development heard a long agenda focused mainly on housing production, higher education facilities, homelessness, and permitting reform. Early items included AB 6, which would direct HCD to convene a working group on allowing three- to ten-unit “missing middle” housing to be built under the Residential Code rather than the Building Code; AB 48, a higher education bond proposal that would fund campus repairs, modernization, disaster recovery, and student/employee housing; and AB 76, which would clarify a Chula Vista university innovation district exemption so the project can include academic buildings and housing without conflicting with surplus land rules. Supporters emphasized affordability, cost savings, student housing needs, and access to education, while members raised questions about implementation, affordability requirements, and project scope. The committee later took votes on these items, with AB 6, AB 48, and AB 76 all moving forward on unanimous or near-unanimous votes to Appropriations. Members also heard AB 595, which would create a state homeownership tax credit pilot to support affordable for-sale housing. The author and supporters argued that California’s homeownership rate is at historic lows and that the bill would help close racial wealth gaps by financing homes working families can buy. The committee approved AB 595 and sent it to Appropriations. The consent calendar, including several other housing-related bills, was also approved unanimously. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to AB 1165, the California Housing Justice Act of 2025, which would require ongoing state investment and a financing plan to address homelessness and housing affordability. The author and witnesses described the scale of homelessness, the limits of one-time funding, and the need for sustained, accountable funding streams. After testimony from housing advocates and people with lived experience, the committee passed AB 1165 on a 10-0 vote to Appropriations. Finally, the committee heard AB 609, a CEQA reform bill that would create a simplified exemption for qualifying infill housing projects in already developed areas. Supporters framed it as a targeted way to reduce delays and costs for housing near jobs and transit, while opponents from environmental justice, labor, and tribal groups warned it could reduce public participation, weaken protections for disadvantaged communities, and create consultation concerns for tribal cultural resources. The author said the bill would not change zoning or affordability tools and would continue to work with opponents on amendments. The bill was moved forward after extensive discussion, with members noting ongoing negotiations on tribal consultation and labor concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we do a 15-year tax exemption, and that timing is really coming from a sensitivity to the LIHTC program
• So it was really more of like one more tool to help LIHTC and our nonprofits make their deals pencil,

Summary: The Senate Housing Committee heard presentations on a range of housing finance, permitting, and affordability tools. Chattanooga described its affordable housing PILOT program, which uses a per-unit property tax abatement tied to the rent loss from providing affordable units, with a 15-year term and annual compliance monitoring. Committee members asked about the program’s structure, whether it had been used elsewhere, and who was participating; the presenter said the first mixed-income project would bring 278 units with 42 affordable units and that the model was attracting private market-rate developers. Shoreline then described its MFTE and inclusionary zoning approach, emphasizing that longer tax exemption periods and station-area zoning changes had helped spur development, with most current pipeline projects concentrated near light rail stations. The committee also heard from the Municipal Research Services Center and the Department of Commerce on tax increment financing, proportional impact fees, and permit timelines. Commerce explained that TIF can fund public improvements such as roads, utilities, broadband, and some affordable housing or child care facilities, while proportional impact fee guidance is intended to help jurisdictions charge fees more closely aligned with actual project impacts. On permit timelines, Commerce presented its first annual report under recent law changes, using 2024 as a baseline year and noting that reported timelines were generally longer than statutory goals; members asked about outliers, paper versus electronic processing, and whether back-and-forth between applicants and staff was driving delays. Commerce said it would follow up with more data, including on CHIP funding and permit reform practices. Several local governments then shared permitting process improvements. Auburn reported relatively short review cycles and described its move to fully electronic permitting, internal performance standards, and a stock plan program that speeds review for repeated home designs. Bellevue described an AI permitting pilot with a local startup to help with pre-application questions, document triage, and plan review, aiming to reduce incomplete applications and revision cycles. Seattle presented a pilot for accessory dwelling unit co-development in which a mission-driven partner would help homeowners split lots, finance, build, and manage ADUs, with the homeowner eventually buying out the partner and retaining ownership; committee members asked about rent setting, management fees, and default risk, and staff said they would follow up. The committee also heard brief overviews of community land trusts and limited equity cooperatives as permanent affordability models, with presenters urging continued state and local funding support and policy recognition for these approaches.

Bills: HF1143, HF1548, HF1340, HF2549, HF2559, HF1673, HF2740, HF2507, HF2461, HF2381, HF2695

Keywords: education funding, unemployment aid, special education, Minnesota statutes, appropriations, housing, redevelopment, local government, trust funds, community development, HF1340, housing infrastructure bonds, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, MHFA, affordable housing, supportive housing, permanent housing, adaptive reuse, area median income, AMI

Bills: HF1143, HF1548, HF1340, HF2549, HF2559, HF1673, HF2740, HF2507, HF2461, HF2381, HF2695

Keywords: education funding, unemployment aid, special education, Minnesota statutes, appropriations, housing, redevelopment, local government, trust funds, community development, HF1340, housing infrastructure bonds, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, MHFA, affordable housing, supportive housing, permanent housing, adaptive reuse, area median income, AMI

Transcript Highlights:

• that are eligible for renovation and modernization, utilizing the low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC
• So you've heard a lot about TDHCA today and a lot about the LIHTC program.

Bills: HB164, HB164, HB411, HB627, HB 1226, HB1677, HB1865, HB1997, HB2985, HB3462, HB4188, HB4685, HB4840, HB5370, HB5424, HB5466, HB5509, HB5660, HB5673

Keywords: HB 164, HB164, Texas Flood Recovery, Reimbursement, and Reconstruction Program, Texas Division of Emergency Management, TDEM, Hill Country floods, July 2025 floods, flood recovery, disaster relief, flood reimbursement, reconstruction grants, resiliency standards, floodplain, base flood elevation, FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency, insurance denial, property damage, tenant assistance, rental property

Transcript Highlights:

• ..limited to a proactive plan to protect the tenants of the 14,000 units of temporarily affordable LIHTC

Bills: HB1700

Keywords: housing, expedited permits, disabilities, access, functional needs, local government, affordable housing, reporting requirements, 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint committees on Housing and Health and Human Services, along with related committees, heard and later took action on three housing bills. HB 1700 HD1, relating to housing and expedited permitting, received support from disability advocates, including the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities and a self-advocate who said faster permitting would help people with disabilities access more independent living options. The chairs said they would add amendments to ensure expedited permitting would not compromise ADA or Fair Housing Act protections and to require reporting on the number, type, and geographic distribution of projects so the program could be evaluated over time. The measure was recommended and adopted with amendments by the participating committees. HB 1777 HD2, which would require tenant protections for residents displaced by HHFDC-supported redevelopment projects, drew support from HHFDC, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Parents and Children Together, and numerous other organizations. Testimony emphasized the need for a right of first offer, replacement housing payments, relocation information, and tracking procedures to reduce displacement harms, especially for Native Hawaiian and public housing residents. In decision-making, the committees amended the bill to incorporate the Senate companion measure, rename the working group as the tenant protection working group, broaden its duties, and include a $75,000 appropriation for working group expenses. The committees also noted concerns about unequal treatment between tenants in publicly supported projects and private redevelopments, and referenced the KPT low-rise redevelopment as an example where required relocation assistance still did not proceed smoothly. The bill was recommended and adopted with amendments. HB 1975 HD1, relating to kupuna housing, would repeal the sunset on the state rent supplement program for kupuna, appropriate funds to HPHA, and add positions to support the program. HPHA, the Executive Office on Aging, OHA, Catholic Charities Hawaii, AARP Hawaii, Aloha Independent Living Hawaii, and others testified in support, with Catholic Charities describing how the subsidy helped a senior remain housed through major medical issues. The committees later recommended passage with amendments, including a technical correction to the number of positions and a date fix, and the recommendation was adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, for the LIHTC units, they must remain affordable at that level for a specified period, which

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Housing heard two resolutions. STR 48 SD 1 called for a comprehensive strategy to adopt updated building codes, with testimony listed from several groups but no one appeared to testify. The committee later deferred the measure, noting it was very similar to House Concurrent Resolution 67 House Draft 1. The committee then took up STR 6D1, which urges the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation to develop a plan to produce enough housing to meet state demand. HHFDC testified that the resolution misstated the scope of low-income housing tax credit units and emphasized that the state’s housing need is much larger than previously cited, with a recent study showing about 33,000 units needed for households at or below 60% AMI statewide. HHFDC supported planning but said any plan must be realistic and account for private land constraints. A member raised concerns about rising leasehold costs and affordability for homeowners, and HHFDC responded that rental affordability can be maintained more readily than for-sale housing. The committee adopted HHFDC’s proposed amendments to STR 6D1, including deleting a clause about overbuilding, revising the shortage figures, and adding language referencing Senate Bill 26 and the affordable housing land inventory task force. The committee also amended the resolution to focus on density and timing of development for projects identified by that task force. The measure passed with amendments, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• concerned about, you know, this cumulative effect that we're having and not meeting investments in LIHTC
• or multiple housing programs. ...and not meeting investments in LIHTC or multiple housing programs or
• not see any in the May Revise and are thankful that the Assembly has committed to prioritizing the LIHTC

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a series of May Revision budget items, beginning with the State Controller’s Office. SCO described requests for Fiscal Book of Record stabilization, payroll system implementation, ACFR reporting support, and unclaimed property outreach funding. Members focused on the Fiscal system’s July go-live, the improved timeliness of the ACFR, and the unclaimed property program’s roughly $15 billion balance and outreach efforts. The Department of Finance and LAO raised no major concerns, and the item was closed after discussion of how the new outreach funding would be used. The committee then considered several revenue proposals. Finance presented a proposal to tax pre-written digital software and SaaS, with estimated General Fund gains of $450 million in 2026-27 and $900 million ongoing; LAO suggested broader digital tax changes and a business-use exemption, while industry groups opposed the measure as a tax on essential digital tools. CDTFA also presented an administrative request tied to the software tax, and later a $10 million budget reduction reflecting lower operational needs. The committee then heard a federal conformity proposal for new children’s tax-deferred accounts, which LAO supported, and a proposal to cut the first-year LLC/LP minimum tax from $800 to $400, which Finance said would aid small business formation but LAO argued was poorly targeted and would reduce revenue. Another major item was a permanent business tax credit limitation beginning in 2027, capping credits at the greater of $5 million per corporation or 50% of pre-credit liability. Finance said it would raise about $850 million in 2026-27 and more in later years, while LAO noted it would mainly affect large firms using the R&D credit and could also touch California Competes and other programs. Public testimony split sharply between business groups opposing the cap and advocates supporting it as a progressive revenue measure. The committee also heard FTB’s CalFile realignment proposal, which would retain a smaller staff to continue improving the free filing system and return most of the prior funding to the General Fund. The hearing concluded with the California Arts Council’s request to reauthorize the Keep Arts in Schools voluntary contribution fund, which brings in about $221,000 to $266,000 annually for arts grants and teacher stipends. Members and advocates supported the item but also urged larger arts funding, including the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund. The Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development then presented proposals for the California Civic Media Program, CA RISE reappropriation, and a reversion of unused Chips for America facility funds; LAO supported the latter two but was cautious about new civic media spending. Members raised concerns about the civic media program’s scope, including the exclusion of broadcast and the lack of a specific ethnic media set-aside, while GoBiz said funds would begin going out in the fall if approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• concerned about, you know, this cumulative effect that we're having and not meeting investments in LIHTC
• And not meeting investments in LIHTC or multiple housing programs or ASHC, or just the menu of support
• not see any in the May Revision and are thankful that the Assembly has committed to prioritizing the LIHTC

Summary: The committee opened with the State Controller’s Office May Revision requests, including funding for Fiscal book-of-record stabilization, a Broadcom IDMS licensing adjustment, the California State Payroll System, ACFR reporting automation, and $3 million for unclaimed property outreach. Testimony emphasized progress on Fiscal becoming the state’s accounting book of record in July, faster ACFR publication, and the move to electronic unclaimed property claims. Members asked about the size of the unclaimed property fund and how quickly money is transferred to the General Fund; the Controller’s office said about $15 billion is held, with most excess transferred regularly, and the LAO noted the fund is the General Fund’s fourth-largest revenue source. No concerns were raised by Finance or the LAO, and the item was closed after no public comment. The committee then heard the administration’s proposal to tax prewritten digital software and software-as-a-service, with Finance saying it would modernize sales tax treatment and raise an estimated $450 million General Fund and $560 million local revenue in 2026-27. The LAO supported modernizing the tax but suggested broader digital goods coverage and a business-use exemption; industry and taxpayer groups opposed the proposal, warning of higher costs for consumers and businesses. Members also heard CDTFA’s administrative request tied to the proposal, plus a separate CDTFA budget reduction reflecting lower operational needs; that reduction was presented as a savings item and drew positive reactions. Next, the committee considered federal conformity for “Trump accounts,” which would align California tax treatment with federal rules for tax-deferred children’s accounts and avoid tracking burdens for families. The LAO recommended approval, and the item drew no opposition. The committee also heard a proposal to cut the first-year $800 annual business tax to $400 for LLCs, LPs, and LLPs; Finance argued it would lower startup costs and encourage new business formation, while the LAO said the benefit was not well targeted and could subsidize entities that would form anyway. Members discussed the policy tradeoff, and public commenters split between support for small business relief and concern about revenue loss. The final major revenue item was a permanent business tax credit limitation, capping credits at the greater of $5 million per corporation or 50% of pre-credit liability, while excluding the low-income housing tax credit and personal income tax credits. Finance said it would raise significant revenue from large profitable corporations, and the LAO said it was a reasonable option but noted it would mainly affect the R&D credit and could have future implications for programs like California Competes. Public testimony was sharply divided, with business groups opposing the cap and anti-poverty advocates supporting it as a way to recapture revenue. The committee also heard FTB’s CalFile realignment request, which would return most of the direct-file-related resources to the General Fund while retaining a smaller staff to improve CalFile, and the California Arts Council’s request to reauthorize the Keep Arts in Schools voluntary contribution fund, which members and advocates supported despite relatively modest annual donations. The hearing continued with GoBiz proposals on civic media funding, CA RISE reappropriation, and a semiconductor facility reversion, with the LAO supporting the latter two and members raising questions about the civic media program’s scope, outreach, and inclusion of broadcast and ethnic media.

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the things that was really... this is under LIHTC though, but one of the— and it's under the umbrella

Bills: HB1342, HB2889, HB3002, HB3254, HB4820, HJR40, HJR40

Keywords: private activity bonds, housing, residential rental projects, low-income, affordable housing, bond measures, funding equality, political subdivisions, public communications, election fairness, debt collection, consumer rights, disclosures, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, settlement agreements, State Board of Education, group benefits program, health insurance, state employees, dependents eligibility

Transcript Highlights:

• per se, but we do have concerns about how projects will be maintained in the long term because these LIHTC
• to look into avoiding the situation that happened with the Fred Street Apartments in Lahaina, that LIHTC
• But I mean, moving forward, you know, with all these LIHTC potential developments, not just that loophole
• that a partner member that is a partnership or limited liability company that has been allocated a LIHTC

Bills: HB2611, HB2102, HB1710, HB1868, HB1920, HB1812, HB1733, HB1715, HB1723, HB1724, HB1727, HB1711

Keywords: HB2611, Hawaii antitrust, rental housing, rent price-fixing, algorithmic pricing, algorithmic rent-setting, property management software, pricing algorithms, rent coordination, price-fixing, collusion, cartel, multifamily housing, landlord software, occupancy levels, lease terms, Attorney General, public education program, consumer protection, housing affordability

Summary: The committee first took up HB 2611, which would prohibit algorithmic price-setting in Hawaii’s rental market, require public education by the Attorney General, and establish fines and penalties. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill, saying its language was too unclear and could expose landlords and agents to criminal and civil liability for ordinary rent-setting practices based on public information or assistance from property professionals. Members asked about antitrust standards, tacit agreement, and whether using county-published affordable-rent schedules would be unlawful; the AG said that would not be unlawful if based on public information and without collusion. Testimony was mixed, with the chair noting support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii Realtors with comments, 50501 Hawaii and General Strike Hawaii, Haloha Project, 13 individuals, and one opponent. The committee then heard HB 2102, which clarifies that residential projects involving ground disturbance in high-risk areas remain subject to state historic preservation review and removes an exemption for lands presumed nominally sensitive. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and the Department of Planning and Permitting supported the measure, saying it would improve clarity and ensure review focuses on projects most likely to affect historic properties or iwi kupuna, while also urging language refinements to better define sensitive sandy-soil areas and balance preservation with housing timelines. NAP Hawaii opposed the bill, arguing it would undo progress made last session and that the current process already includes protections for inadvertent discoveries and efficiency for lower-risk areas. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs strongly supported HB 2102, explaining it was responding to beneficiary complaints about late-added language in last year’s law and saying the nominally sensitive-area language should be removed because it was adopted without sufficient stakeholder input and could be harmful to iwi kupuna protections. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation and several individuals also supported the bill. Committee discussion focused on how “nominally sensitive” areas are determined, whether project proponents could self-certify areas as exempt, and how high-density residential projects should be treated; SHPD said it uses survey and monitoring data to map sensitivity, that highly sensitive areas like Kīauea are not nominally sensitive, and that some high-density projects should remain exempt if they do not involve new ground disturbance. The hearing included no final vote in the portion provided, but the chair noted 48 individuals in support and continued questioning on the bill’s definitions and implementation.

Transcript Highlights:

• I can say is to build affordable housing today in the state of Colorado is very difficult without LIHTC
• We already have it in LIHTC federal grants.
• already<04:00:21.920> have<04:00:22.080> it<04:00:22.319> in<04:00:22.720> LIHTC
• We already have it in LIHTC We already have it in LIHTC federal<04:00:24.960> grants.
• That doesn't have anything to do with LIHTC credits, but yet we're going down this road.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The House convened for Military Appreciation Day with a color guard presentation, the national anthem, the Pledge of Allegiance led by military veterans, and a quorum call. The journal from the prior day was approved, and the chamber then moved out of order to consider a series of resolutions honoring military service and veterans. All of the resolutions taken up in this segment were adopted by recorded vote, generally with unanimous support and no opposing votes, with several members named as co-sponsors after passage. The first resolutions recognized military service broadly and by community: HJR 1004 honored military members, veterans, POWs, MIAs, and Gold Star families; HJR 1005 recognized African-American veterans; HJR 1006 recognized Latina and Latino veterans; HJR 1007 honored Native American veterans and communities; HJR 1008 honored women veterans and women serving in the armed forces; HJR 1009 focused on veterans mental health awareness and proclaimed Military and Veterans Appreciation Day; HJR 1010 honored Colorado veterans of the Vietnam War; HJR 1011 marked the 81st anniversary of the end of World War II and honored Colorado veterans who served in that war; and HJR 1012 honored Korean War veterans. Each was adopted with overwhelming support, typically 59 or 60 ayes and no no votes. The chamber also adopted HJR 1013 honoring Persian Gulf War veterans, HJR 1014 honoring post-9/11 veterans, HJR 1015 recognizing the 58th anniversary of the capture of the USS Pueblo and calling for its return, and HJR 1016 honoring the 10th Mountain Division and Camp Hale. After the votes, the House recessed for sponsor remarks. Speakers from both chambers and invited guests gave tributes emphasizing sacrifice, family service, historical discrimination faced by African-American and Latino veterans, the contributions of Native American code talkers and tribal communities, the importance of mental health support for veterans, and remembrance of Gold Star families and those lost in war.

Bills: SB502, SB513, SB622, SB670, SB731, SB732, SB916, SB961, SB1122

Keywords: SB 502, Texas peace officers, Health and Human Services Commission, HHSC Office of Inspector General, OIG investigators, law enforcement classification, Schedule C, state employee benefits, injury benefits, peace officer status, commissioned officers, state auditor classification, Government Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, human services, health and human services, law enforcement compensation, public employee benefits, Texas state law enforcement, child welfare

Bills: SB502, SB513, SB622, SB670, SB731, SB732, SB916, SB961, SB1122

Keywords: SB 502, Texas peace officers, Health and Human Services Commission, HHSC Office of Inspector General, OIG investigators, law enforcement classification, Schedule C, state employee benefits, injury benefits, peace officer status, commissioned officers, state auditor classification, Government Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, human services, health and human services, law enforcement compensation, public employee benefits, Texas state law enforcement, child welfare

Bills: SB 502, SB 513, SB 622, SB 670, SB 731, SB 732, SB 916, SB 961, SB 1122

Keywords: SB 502, Texas peace officers, Health and Human Services Commission, HHSC Office of Inspector General, OIG investigators, law enforcement classification, Schedule C, state employee benefits, injury benefits, peace officer status, commissioned officers, state auditor classification, Government Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, human services, health and human services, law enforcement compensation, public employee benefits, Texas state law enforcement, child welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• All projects under section 2306.1. and five such as LIHTC, low income housing tax credits, and projects
• When you plot all these properties on a map and you take out LIHTC projects, you find that virtually
• Such as I do LIHTC, 9%, and 4%. I have 17 Section 8 low-income properties.

Bills: HB21, HB211, HB223, HB323, HB524, HB530, HB636, HB762, HB21, HB211, HB223

Keywords: housing finance, multifamily residential, low income, tax exemption, audit requirements, affordable housing, local government, development bonds, housing assistance, financial assistance, low income housing, community support, affordability, veterans housing, community involvement, air conditioning, tenant support, healthcare, elderly, taxation

Transcript Highlights:

• We're seeing that the majority of 2H projects are LIHTC projects, so I'll say in recent years about 90%
• new working group will be open to any members of the public, so we sent out emails to those who use LIHTC

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Housing held a public hearing on a series of housing bills. HB 1432 and HB 1428 drew support from HHFDC, and HB 1428 also received testimony from Hawaiian Community Assets, which said housing counseling funding is needed to meet demand for financial education tied to affordable housing, and that such counseling can help reduce evictions, prevent foreclosure, and stabilize households. HB 833 on community land trusts received broad support from HHFDC, county housing officials, community land trust representatives, and a local developer; testimony emphasized keeping housing affordable in perpetuity, but also asked for clearer access to financing, longer repayment terms, and inclusion of additional land trusts in the bill. Peter Savio argued that community land trusts are the best way to control demand and keep housing tied to local incomes. The committee also heard HB 19 on the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund, which HHFDC said should be made permanent because the pilot has been successful, with 81 units in the program and $7.4 million of the $10 million allocation already committed. HHFDC said the fund helps stalled for-sale projects by providing state equity that revolved back when homes are sold. HB 529 and HB 432 were also heard; HB 432 would create a subaccount in the rental housing revolving fund for projects above 60% AMI, and HHFDC said this would help finance housing for households at 65% and 80% AMI. The bill drew support from several housing, business, and industry groups. Several other housing measures were discussed with mixed testimony. HB 419 had HHFDC support, Limby Hawaiʻi opposition, and support from the Grassroot Institute and others; members asked about whether councils approve these projects in one or multiple readings. HB 527 and HB 416 also drew a mix of support and opposition, with questions focused on county approval timelines and whether state-financed projects would still go through normal local review. HB 417 on the rental housing revolving fund prompted questions about how it differs from the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund and whether it should be more flexible for mixed rental and for-sale projects. HB 418’s proposed working group was noted as potentially unnecessary because HHFDC said a public working group was already being formed. HB 1411 on housing preference raised questions about what happens if a recipient changes jobs, and HB 374 drew an Attorney General’s Office recommendation to remove a duration requirement to avoid possible constitutional travel issues. HB 373 and HB 1492 were also heard, with strong testimony from Peter Savio in favor of a broader trust-based model for affordable housing. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, so I do—I have a question just about this LIHTC program.
• How does the LIHTC do that? >> So it's a federal program.
• So when Homes for America or Enterprise or Kai or Osprey, if they get a $2 million LIHTC tax credit,
• The definition of affordable housing is interestingly exactly the definition for LIHTC tax credit.
• Something called the total development costs for new construction that is supported by LIHTC are much

Keywords: Senate streaming session for Wednesday, April 8, 2026, 960, senate, all

Summary: The Senate convened, established a quorum, and handled several ceremonial and introductory matters before moving into committee reports. The chamber welcomed the doctor of the day, recognized an intern and a guest in the gallery, extended birthday wishes to Senator Chris West, and received remarks from the Romanian Ambassador to the United States, Dr. Andre Moraru, who emphasized Romania’s strategic partnership with the United States, NATO cooperation, investment ties, energy projects, and support for Ukraine. Senators also briefly noted Maryland’s military and diplomatic ties to Romania. The ambassador’s remarks were journalized, and members were given time to meet with him off the floor. The Senate then took up a series of second-reading bills, mostly from the Finance Committee, adopting committee amendments and favorable reports without objection. Among the measures advanced were Senate Bill 39 on behavioral health reimbursement rate methodology and a work group for certified community behavioral health clinics and outpatient mental health centers; Senate Bill 605 directing the Public Service Commission to study broadband and VoIP oversight; Senate Bill 721, Ralph’s Act, providing expedited DDA/Medicaid eligibility for certain recently relocated individuals; and Senate Bill 891 on perinatal mental health screening, coverage, training, and reporting. Each was amended in committee and ordered printed for third reading. The Senate also advanced several House bills, including House Bill 427 extending the task force on responsible use of natural psychedelic substances and adding an HBCU representative; House Bill 480 requiring transportation network companies to maintain written deactivation policies; House Bill 532 requiring overtime pay for firefighters employed by governmental units after 168 hours in a 28-day period; House Bill 816 reducing the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund assessment cap from 3% to 1% and authorizing an affordability program; House Bill 829 requiring human trafficking awareness training for certain for-hire and rideshare drivers; House Bill 862 requiring a two-person crew for certain freight rail operations in shared corridors, contingent on similar action in neighboring states; and House Bill 999 revising Class 9 limited distillery license rules and production limits. Most of these bills were reported favorably, with no objections, and were ordered to third reading or passed for third reading as applicable.